Friday, December 9, 2005

SUMAN SAHAI

India is a very small producer of soybean. Its crop of about three to four million tonnes is miniscule compared to the large producers. The US alone produces over 32 million tonnes of Soya per year, Argentina produces about 28 million tonnes, and there are other cultivators like Brazil which are expanding their acreage of GM Soya rapidly. Exact figures are difficult to get for Brazil since much of the soya under cultivation is illegal and no figures are available.The difference between India and the large producers is that India is the only country in the world now whose soybean crop is guaranteed to be free of genetically engineered ( GE) soya. Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are major producers of soybean and they should have a say in framing the policy on what kind of soybean they would like to cultivate since the well being of a large number of their farmers who cultivate soybean, is at stake.

Seventy five percent of the 32 million tonnes of Soya in the US is genetically engineered; ninety eight percent of the soybean in Argentina is genetically engineered and it is assumed that the Brazilian soy is overwhelmingly GE soy as well. India’s entire soybean is GM free and by virtue of that fact it has an assured market in those countries that are opposed to genetically engineered foods, such as Japan and South Korea, both large consumers of soyabean. India’s soybean exports are in the vicinity of Rs 3500 crore per year. This figure is far in excess of the export earnings from Basmati rice which is approximately Rs 2000 to 2500 crores per year.

It would therefore be suicidal for India to adopt cultivation of genetically engineered soybean as the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) are promoting. It would mean the certain loss of the assured export markets that we have today. India’s USP is that itis the only country in the world that is producing 100% GM free soybean. Today all the soy that India produces is sold. Even if it were to increase its soy production several fold, all the Soya would still be sold because the international market is increasingly seeking GM free foods due to the growing rejection by consumers. Manufacturers of baby foods and convalescent foods and housewives in countries like Japan and Korea, large soy consumers, are strongly opposed to GM foods and prefer GM free Soya.

India should keep GE soybean firmly out of the country and in fact increase its cultivation of GE free soya to increase its export earnings. At the moment, the niche market for GE fee foods is growing and is likely to become the major market. It is in India’s interest to not just produce GE free soybean but also become a major producer of GE free foods.

In the case of rice, India exports not just Basmati, but non-Basmati rice as well, largely to Europe and West Asia but also to Africa. The total annual value of India’s rice export is in the vicinity of Rs. 6000 crores. The importers of Indian rice are countries where there is mounting opposition to GM foods. Indian rice enjoys assured markets today and there is a distinct upward trend in exports of both Basmati and non-basmati rice. Does it seem like an intelligent act to jeopardize this assured market and start cultivating GM rice? Who will make up for the revenue losses to the farmers that will result from countries declining the import of GM rice from India?

As against this push GM at all costs approach, it would be wise to take cognizance of the burgeoning organic sector and respond to it. The hill states have understood this simple logic. Sikkim, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Uttaranchal have decided to go organic rather than GM. The international organic market does not permit GM contamination in organic produce, so organic and GM free has to go hand in hand. This would appear to be the future that the markets are pointing to. India’s agricultural research policy must take note of this development. There would be little point in doing research on genetically engineered crops when there are no markets for it or when such an approach would jeopardize existing markets.

The Task Force on Agbiotechnology chaired by MS Swaminathan has submitted its report to the government. An important recommendation in the report is that India’s program for developing GM crops should acknowledge the reality of the market. One of the crops mentioned in the report as needing special attention, is soybean. This should be taken serious note of by the policy planners. India is a tiny producer of soybean but the crop is a foreign exchange earner because it can certify its soya to be GE free.

The overall situation with respect to genetically engineered crops in the country , is less than satisfactory. At the moment decisions on GM crops are taken in a non-transparent way, without either a risk or cost –benefit analysis and without involving farmers in the decision making process. It would be far better to conduct a broad based and transparent debate on what should constitute the nation’s policy on GM crops. It is indefensible that a country of this size and with once formidable skills, with such agricultural strengths and dependencies, is so arbitrarily planning its biotechnology agenda.

Wednesday, September 7, 2005

On his visit to the US, the Prime Minister made adeal on nuclear energy and another on agriculture. Because of the furor over the former, the latter seems to have gone unnoticed. It should not be. India has asked for US help to develop drought resistant crop varieties; reduce post harvest losses, take information about improved technologies directly to farmers and provide training in sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Training to improve food standards will be welcome since India is very poor in this regard .Indian exports are returned, sometimes because buyers use phytosanitary standards as a protectionist tool but also because the products are contaminated or substandard.

Phytosanitary training alone will not enable Indian farmers to participate more fully in global trade, as is projected. That will only happen if domestic subsidies and tariffs are reduced by the US and EU. The subsidy impediments to those markets are being negotiated currently, without any success whatsoever, in the agriculture negotiations prior to the December WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong.

Although not stated explicitly, the agriculture pact deals essentially with agricultural biotechnology.The US really does not have anything of relevance to offer Indian agriculture and small farmers. The technologies available in US laboratories are known and there is nothing of importance to Indian agriculture which is plagued by different problems, like lack of credit and crop insurance, spurious seeds and substandard inputs.

Then there is the problem of Intellectual Property Rights. Almost all products and processes in agricultural biotechnology are protected by patents and practically controlled by six multinationals. The technologies developed in American universities have also slipped into their hands thanks to the Bayh- Dole Act which allows universities to transfer technologies generated with public funds, to the industry.

A collaboration with the US would make sense only if technologies were to be available free of patents, if not, there is no need for a special deal. Monsanto’s Bt technology, for instance, is available to anyone who can pay their license fees. A deal to use US technology is likely to increase the pressure on India for introducing seed patents and removing the ban we have placed on the American terminator technology. The Americans favor patents on seeds as against Plant Breeders Rights which is the Indian legislation.

Regarding the special focus on developing drought resistant varieties, it is worth recalling that globally this research has been entrusted to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The principal mandate of the public sector CG system with its strength of over 8000 scientists is to develop drought resistant plant varieties for developing countries. If at all India needs to use the transgenic approach to drought tolerance, its natural partner is the CG system, not the US.

If it is post harvest losses we are concerned about, there are relatively straightforward solutions. We need scaling up of our food processing sector to add shelf life to agricultural produce. More and better warehouses for storing our buffer stocks and better transportation facilities,( less broken trucks that leak the grain as they transport it) are guaranteed to reduce post harvest losses. The main post harvest technology that the US has is the delayed ripening technology that was used to create the ‘Flavr Savr’ tomato. Flavr Savr was abandoned largely because of health fears after it was found that laboratory rats fed on the GM tomato died or suffered health damage. Flavr Savr has never been revived and we should be cautious that we do not become the dumping ground for failed and dangerous technologies.

The part that mystifies most is the assertion that the Indo –US collaboration will take information and know-how directly to the farming community. How does it propose to do this ? Given the fact that we have dismantled the agriculture extension service and the connections between the laboratory and the farmers’ fields have been snapped many years ago, through which mechanism will these allegedly beneficial technologies be taken directly to the farming community? The Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) , set up as technology absorption hubs in rural areas have long ago fallen into disuse and there is no provision to revive them.

The real problem in Indian agriculture today is the appalling state of the agricultural research system , which is moribund, lacking innovative capacity and engaged to a large extent, in copy cat research. Over a third of all the research being done on GM crops in the country is based on Monsanto’s Bt gene, as though the only problem we have in Indian agriculture is the bollworm (the pest against which Bt is partly effective).

The Indo- US deal will not solve our problems nor introduce the desperately needed spirit of independent scientific enquiry that seems to have abandoned the ICAR system. Instead, a radical overhaul of the country’s agricultural research is needed. Heads must roll, the stables cleaned up, the system revamped and good scientists, of which there are plenty, brought in to lead the world class research that our scientists are capable of. That, and not a dubious pact in agriculture is what the country needs today.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Prime Minister took along a number of scientific and technical people on his visit to the US with the aim of entering into technical collaboration with the Americans. Apart from the much discussed pact on nuclear energy, there is also a ‘second generation collaboration on agriculture’. The relevant extract from the Prime Minister’s speech reads like this “ …. have decided to launch a second generation of India-US collaboration in the field of agriculture. The new initiative will focus on basic and strategic research for sustainable development of agriculture to meet the challenge of raising productivity in conditions of water stress. It seeks to take information and know-how directly to the farming community and promote technologies that minimize post harvest wastage and improve food storage. It will also help Indian farmers to meet phytosanitary conditions and enable them to participate more fully in global agricultural trade.

The key areas the Prime Minister’s advisors have decided to focus on for seeking US help, are sustainable agriculture; developing drought resistant crop varieties; reducing post harvest losses of agricultural produce by improving the shelf life of such produce; taking information about improved technologies directly to farmers and training in the WTO requirement of maintaining adequate sanitary and phytosanitary standards for agricultural produce. The last, training and capacity building in achieving hygiene and purity standards for agricultural produce that is globally acceptable will be welcome since India is very poor in this regard and could do with some international level training on achieving sanitary and phytosanitary standards in agriculture. Indian produce is often returned by international buyers, sometimes because they use phytosanitary standards as a protectionist tool to protect domestic producers but partly also because the products are contaminated or substandard.

It is when we take the phytosanitary point further that we realize that it is actually a blind alley which does not take us anywhere. According to the PM’s speech, collaboration on phytosanitary training will enable Indian farmers to participate more fully in global trade. Yet, there is no mention of the only factor that will enable us to export our goods and that is reducing tariffs and bringing down the large domestic and export agriculture subsidies which are the barriers to our participating in global trade. The astronomic agriculture subsidies in the US and EU make Indian products expensive and unviable in their markets.So, after training in phytosanitary standards we may end up with better agricultural produce ( a desirable enough goal), but let us not fool ourselves that this will open up American and European markets for us. The subsidy impediments to those markets are being negotiated currently, without any success whatsoever, in the run up to the Agreement on Agriculture negotiations prior to the December WTO Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong.

Now let us examine the rest of the agenda, which although not stated explicitly, deals essentially with agricultural biotechnology.Does the US have anything of relevance or importance to offer Indian agriculture and small farmers? The technologies available in US laboratories in the private and public sector are known since many years. There is nothing new there nor anything of terrible relevance to the problems of Indian agriculture. An important problem with using US technologies is the question of Intellectual Property Rights. Almost the entire spectrum of technologies in agricultural biotechnology is protected by patents. In fact, the technology can be said to be almost completely in the hands of six multinational concerns, Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer and BASF. The public sector technologies that were developed in American universities and research institutions have also slipped into the hands of the industry thanks to the Bayh- Dole Act. This legislation allowed universities to transfer technologies generated with public research funds, to the industry, resulting in public institutions granting (exclusive) licenses to the corporations, on almost all key technologies. So at best, the US can give us access to its patented and expensive GM technologies.

Any talk of Indo- US collaboration would make sense only if the technologies were to be available for free or on highly concessional rates. If we have to access a technology at market rates, there is no need for a special collaboration. Agbiotech technologies, like Monsanto’s Bt technology, are available to anyone who can pay the license fees that they charge. The other IPR question is that ofseed patents. The Americans are known to favor patents as against Plant Breeders Rights which is the legislation that we have in India. The corporations (backed by the US) have beenlobbying for a change in India’s patent laws that would make genes and seeds patentable. A collaboration to use their technology is likely to increase the pressure on India for introducing seed patents and perhaps removing the ban we have placed on the terminator technology. The terminator technology is jointly owned by the US government. None of these developments will be in the interest of Indian farmers or national food security.

Regarding the special focus that has been placed on the collaboration with the US ,to develop drought resistant varieties, it is worth recalling that this research has been entrusted to the institutions of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Instead of frittering small research grants in many laboratories, the international research community (including India) decided that the principal mandate of the CGIAR with respect to GM crops would be to develop drought tolerant varieties.

The CG system with its strength of over 8000 scientists and researchers is a public sector research agency whose mandate is to do publicly accessible research ( without being patented) to serve public causes and farmers’ needs in developing countries. If at all India needs to use the transgenic approach to drought tolerance research, its natural partner is the CG system, not the US.

It is quite another matter that experts in the field of water stress have pointed out repeatedly, that a plant’s response to water stress is far too complex and dependent on often unpredictable factors, to be fixed by a transgenic approach, shooting some foreign gene into a plant. There are far greater chances of success in going the conventional way; exploring the available genetic biodiversity of the particular crop, selecting promising varieties and breeding drought tolerant varieties which contain an optimal combination of genes that will help the plant to withstand water stress in a variety of ways. We need to remember that all drought tolerant crop varieties in existence today have been bred by conventional breeding. Nothing has yet emerged from the years of expensive transgenic research directed towards this goal.

Then we have the focus on reducing post-harvest losses and improving food storage. The only technology that the US has in this connection is the delayed ripening technology that they used to create the ‘Flavr Savr’ tomato, a tomato that would remain firm and not rot easily. This technology which looked promising failed for a variety of reasons, the most important of which were food safety concerns raised after feeding trials. Rats fed with Flavr Savr tomato in laboratory experiments showed health damage. Flavr Savr has never been picked up again, not even in the US and we should be cautious that we do not become the dumping ground for a failed and dangerous technology.

If it is post harvest losses we are concerned about, there are relatively easy solutions with no connection to Agbiotech. We need substantial investment and scaling up of our food processing sector, to add value to agricultural produce that otherwise rots under poor quality storage conditions or because it cannot reach markets in time. The Indo -US collaboration would be useful if it brought advanced food processing technology that would allow value addition of fruits and vegetables locally, increasing farm incomes.

This is a more realistic approach to reducing post harvest losses than a potentially dangerous, expensive and failed agbiotechnology from the US. More and better warehouses for storing our buffer stocks and better transportation facilities,( less broken trucks that leak the grain as they transport it) are guaranteed to reduce post harvest losses. The fact is that we know the causes of our post harvest losses and we also know the solutions. It is hard to see where a genetic engineering approach fits here.

The part that mystifies most is the assertion that the Indo –US collaboration will take information and know-how directly to the farming community. How does it propose to do this ? Given the fact that we have entirely dismantled the agriculture extension service and the connections between the laboratory and the farmers’ fields have been snapped many years ago, through which mechanism will these allegedly beneficial technologies be taken directly to the farming community? The Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) , set up as technology absorption hubs in rural areas have long ago fallen into disuse and there is no provision to revive them.

The real challenge before Indian agriculture is the weakened to the point of becoming defunct nature of the agricultural research system. The system is moribund, lacking innovative capacity and engaged to a large extent, in copy cat research. Over a third of all the research being done on GM crops in the country is based on Monsanto’s Bt gene, as though the only problem we have in Indian agriculture is the bollworm (the pest against which Bt is partly effective). Collaboration with the US will not solve these problems nor introduce the desperately needed spirit of independent scientific enquiry that seems to have abandoned the ICAR system. Many proposals have been made in recent years to overhaul the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the agricultural universities, to make them responsive to the country’s needs. Its time to take action on those. Heads must roll, the stables cleaned up, the system revamped and good scientists (of which there are plenty) brought in to lead the world class research that our scientists are capable of conducting. No amount of Indo- Us collaboration will solve these problems, only resolute will and action will.

About Me

Dr. Suman Sahai, who has had a distinguished scientific career in the field of genetics, is a recipient of the Padma Shri,the Borlaug Award, Outstanding Woman Achiever awards, the BirbalSahni Gold Medal and the Order of the Golden Ark .
Dr. Sahai is founder Chairperson of the Gene Campaign which is a leading research and advocacy organization, working on issues relating to food, nutrition and livelihoods. She has published extensively on science and policy issues and is a member of several national policy forums on scientific research and education, biodiversity and environment, biotechnology and bioethics as well as intellectual property rights.
Dr Sahai chaired India’s Planning Commission Task Force on ‘Agro biodiversity and Genetically Engineered Organisms’, for the XIth Plan. She was a member of the Steering Committee of the National Biodiversity Board , the Expert Committee on Biotechnology Policy and the Bioethics Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research.She has served on the Research Advisory Committees of national scientific institutions.
Dr Sahai can be reached at www.genecampaign.org and mail@genecampaign.org